Actually, bare perception happens with the sense consciousnesses...but we are not "aware" of perceptions until the "intellect" registers those perceptions. I think that's the classical understanding, at least...

May any merit generated by on-line discussionBe dedicated to the Ultimate Benefit of All Sentient Beings.

conebeckham wrote:Actually, bare perception happens with the sense consciousnesses...but we are not "aware" of perceptions until the "intellect" registers those perceptions. I think that's the classical understanding, at least...

Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.

deepbluehum wrote:Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.

We are getting off-topic and, for the last few posts, not giving our sources (as required in the Academic forum). I'd like to ask for the source for the above statements, please, DBH.

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

deepbluehum wrote:Salāyatana does not mean perception. Perception happens at the level of nāma-rūpa and vijñāna. In English perception can mean either raw sense data or judgment. This has led to confusion of terms in Western Buddhism.

To understand 12 links correctly, there is nothing really there to impinge on senses. The 12 links combine to create mirages. So perception is only in the mind part. The salāyatana are merely bases.

We are getting off-topic and, for the last few posts, not giving our sources (as required in the Academic forum). I'd like to ask for the source for the above statements, please, DBH.

The twelve links of dependent origination. I like the translation suggestions given by Ven. Madawala Punnaji. His definitions work very well with Madhyamaka, especially Nagarjuna. I also can't help but channel the Drikung Kagyu (i.e., Kyobpa Jigten Sumgon's "Introduction to Mahamudra--The Co-Emergent Unification) and Nyingmapa oral instructions lineages related to perception and mind (i.e., Karma Lingpa's terma of Guru Rinpoche's "Direct Introduction to Naked Awareness.") . In addition to generally reviewing Nagarjuna's verses. Thus all yanas agree in essence that all perception is just mind.

This is directly on topic, because if this is the case, that all perception is just mind, then there is no outer world, no objects, and therefore, objectivism is false.

Source: A Dictionary of Buddhism, Oxford University Press, 2003, 2004 (which is available in electronic version from answer.com)Description:āyatana (Sanskrit). In Buddhist psychology, the twelve āyatanas are the six senses or modes of perception and the six kinds of object they correspond to, namely: (1) sight and colour/form (rūpa-āyatana); (2) hearing and sound (śabda-āyatana); (3) smell and scent (gandha-āyatana); (4) taste and flavours (rasa-āyatana); (5) touch and tangible objects (sparśa-āyatana); and (6) the mind and ideas (mano-āyatana). Each āyatana is thus the sphere or domain of a particular sense, and encompasses everything that can be experienced through that particular ‘sense-door’. See also ṣad-āyatana.

There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.

deepbluehum wrote:There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.

Actually, the concept is there in the Pali suttas, as noted in the passage from the Pali Dictionary, above; there are "objects" associated with each of the senses. However, it is not dualistic; the words 'inner' and 'outer' in the explanation are there for our poor Western minds because in our Western definition, consciousness itself is dualistic.

However, the pertinent question, for the OP, is: "How does one explain this non-dualism to an Objectivist?"

If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment

deepbluehum wrote:There is absolutely no mention of inner and outer in the Sutras. This dualistic thinking is in opposition to the Buddha's true intent. FYI. For the Buddha, "the All," is merely the skandhas. It is exactly these dictionaries that have perverted dharma, are the primary reason Western Buddhism is degenerate.

Actually, the concept is there in the Pali suttas, as noted in the passage from the Pali Dictionary, above; there are "objects" associated with each of the senses. However, it is not dualistic; the words 'inner' and 'outer' in the explanation are there for our poor Western minds because in our Western definition, consciousness itself is dualistic.

However, the pertinent question, for the OP, is: "How does one explain this non-dualism to an Objectivist?"